Friday, September 25. 2015

In the latest BioTalk, Chelsea and I discuss the use of fetal stem cells and fetal organs in medical research. This is an issue we cannot ignore. If we do, there will a generation of medical treatments, maybe even organ transplants, that will be supplied by abortions. Imagine a time when you, or a loved one, are faced with the horrifying reality that the life-saving treatment being offered came directly from the ending of an innocent life.

There are alternatives. We must demand that researchers get their "raw materials" from ethical sources, or we will have a medical system that is inextricably linked to the abortion industry.

Thursday, August 13. 2015

As a follow up to yesterday's post at LifeNews on the biotech company Ganogen that plans to use organs from aborted fetuses for organ transplants, I found this Q&A on Reddit with Ganogen's CEO, Eugene Gu. It is very enlightening.

It is clear that Gu is concerned with ethics, as are the readers, but his and other's ethics are utilitarian. Gu repeatedly justifies using organs from abortion because the "tissue" is "medical waste" and therefore would be discarded. The reality is that we are all going end up being "medical waste." We do not permit the harvesting of organs where a human life is intentionally ended. Otherwise, we would be harvesting organs from death row inmates.

One reader does point out that Ganogen's advances will create an incentive for more abortions and possibly will create a system that exploits women. Gu dismisses the concern pointing out there are plenty of aborted fetuses to go around.

Gu also repeatedly mentions all of the research that is currently going on with fetal body parts procured from abortion. He also uses that as a justification. Evils of the past do not justify evils in the future.

Another reader brings up the fact that some fetal cell lines used in research today are "immortal" meaning new abortions are not needed to keep the cell line going. That is not the case with Ganogen's approach, but Gu still equates them morally.

What I find disturbing is that the majority of readers see no problem harvesting organs from the unborn and using them for others. It is a testament to how twisted our culture has become that the revelation that formed human organs are present at 17 weeks gestation does not make people realize that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life.

Here are some highlights from the conversation:

MorfolkMy understanding from the article is that you used organs of aborted fetuses to grow and mature. Is this the only process right now and do you have to rely on abortions?This seems like such a complicated ethical question! Does it impair your work?Eugene_GuMed Student | Duke University | Ganogen, Inc.[S]Yes, you are correct. We used organs from 17 week gestation human fetuses obtained from abortion procedures. It is definitely a complicated ethical question, but one way to view it is that we do not encourage abortions in any shape or form. If we did not use these organs, they would either be thrown into the trash or, more likely, used by other researchers to answer different types of questions. In fact, aborted human fetal tissue is used extremely frequently throughout all of science and industry. In the 1980s, Dr. Irving Weissman at Stanford transplanted aborted human fetal bone marrow, liver, and thymuses into mice to make the now famous SCID-hu or BLT mouse. This mouse was used in the first experiment to definitively show that HIV caused AIDS in humans. If you do a cursory glance in any major science journal, you will see that aborted human fetal tissue is routinely used. For example, the paper "Transcriptional landscape of the prenatal human brain" published in Nature used aborted human fetal brains for gene expression studies. In the New England Journal of Medicine and Science, several studies showed the use of aborted human fetal brains transplanted into human patients in an attempt to cure Parkinson's disease. Jonas Salk used aborted human fetal kidney cells to grow the polio virus in his quest to rid the world of such a terrible disease.In industry, the use of aborted human fetal products is even more prolific. There is a company called Senomyx which uses aborted human fetal kidney cells to test flavor enhancers for many famous companies including, until very recently, Pepsi.We believe that if human fetal tissues are going to be either a.) thrown into the trash, b.) used for basic science research, or even c.) used to research flavor enhancers, then it is perhaps the most appropriate to use them to directly save the life of another baby or child on the transplant waiting list. In this sense, we do not believe there are any ethical issues with our quest to save patient lives.kateishereWith the current moral arguments against abortions and how that effects the legality of abortion, let alone using the fetal tissue to grow organs, how long would we have to wait for this technology to be accessible after human trials?This is absolutely incredible and hopefully soon-to-be life saving work.Eugene_GuMed Student | Duke University | Ganogen, Inc.[S]Thanks for the support! Human fetal tissues have become such an integral part of science and industry both historically and currently that I do not believe there will be any barrier to using them in the future no matter which administration is in power. For example, in the 1980s, after Dr. Weissman created the SCID-hu mouse, President Regan tried unsuccessfully to ban that type of research. Now the SCID-hu mouse is widely used by many laboratories, including by the NIH in our own federal government even during the Bush era.

Up until last week Ganogen's website was upfront about the fact that their research used organs from aborted fetuses. The archived site is still available. But their new website stresses that they are non-profit and has removed any mention of aborted fetal organs. This is likely due to the exposure of the fetal body part market in the Center for Medical Progress videos.

What this indicates is that Ganogen is no longer comfortable letting the public know what they are up to. I have found this attitude all over the biotech industry. There are many educated elite who think the public should not be informed about such things. We should be ignorant for our own good. Case in point the following thread:

Morfolk Wow, thank you for such a detailed answer!I had absolutely no idea fetuses were used that frequently. Maybe there should be more educational info available to the general public on the issue.gentlemandinosaur I personally feel, at this time... that it would be a very bad idea to "educate" the public on this. It would only become more complicated and more controversial. I do not like it either... but, at this stage in human evolution... I do not feel the public is ready to accept this as a necessity to save human lives. But, this is only my opinion.retardcharizard Yeah. After reading that, my first thought was "How would I explain this to my catholic mother if I end up doing research similar to this?"Jigsus I am catholic and I support this. That material was going in the trash if it wasn't used for research.pocketknifeMTWhat momma don't know...

What is even more disturbing is the fact that Gu thinks we pro-lifers have situational ethics. He suggests we would drop our objections the minute we need an organ transplant:

tigersharkwushenWow, this is the kind of things that religious nut jobs probably don't know about but would make a big stink of it if they ever find out.Eugene_GuMed Student | Duke University | Ganogen, Inc.[S]That is unless one of them needs a transplant.

That is where all this fetal tissue research is going to end up. Pro-lifers will not be able to take advantage of medical advances because researchers choose to use material from abortions for their research. I, for one, reject that scenario. If researchers are looking to help the greatest number of people they should be trying to use materials that are without controversy. Apparently, they think we won't care in the end. They are wrong.

Wednesday, August 12. 2015

Will organ transplants be coming from aborted babies? They will if Ganogen Inc., a California Company, has their way. And Planned Parenthood and Stem Express will likely be partners in that chain that provides organs for transplant taken from aborted babies.

Ganogen’s vision to deal with the shortage of transplant organs is to the harvest organs from aborted fetuses and transfer them into animals to get them to grow large enough to use as a replacement organs for needy patients. Ganogen announced earlier this year that they were able to take a kidney from an aborted fetus and transplant it into a rat. That human fetal kidney was able to keep the rat alive for four months. Their research has been published in the American Journal of Transplantation.

Eugene Gu, the founder and CEO of Ganogen, told Medical Daily in an e-mail, “Our long-term goal is indeed to have these organs ready for transplant into human patients. However, that would require a large animal model such as a pig rather than a rat.” Medical Daily is clear Ganogen fetal kidneys came from aborted fetuses.

LiveScience also reports that Ganogen procured their fetal organs from Stem Express, the for-profit middleman that provides the tissue and organs “donated” by Planned Parenthood to medical researchers. Stem Express was mentioned by Deborah Nucatola in one of the explosive videos by the Center for Medical Progress that have exposed the market in aborted baby parts.

Thursday, July 16. 2015

It has been several years since the height of the stem-cell controversy, where every day debate raged over the destruction of embryos for embryonic stem cells. These human embryos, conceived in a lab by the hundreds of thousands, are only days old but hold inside a mass of stem cells that scientists told us held the key to regenerative medicine.

These little lives, no bigger than the period at the end of a sentence, were deemed disposable, easily sacrificed to advance medical treatments for everything from paralysis to Parkinson’s.

In the great stem-cells wars, we learned that embryonic stem cells are immature and unwieldy, causing tumors in animal models. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are more stable — and therefore safer for treating patients. As the years have passed, we have heard more and more about adult stem-cell successes and less and less about the failure of embryonic stem cells to become the cure-all many promised.

But the stem-cell wars are far from over. There is a third designation of stem cells that is little known but is gaining momentum: the fetal stem cell. Human beings are called embryos for the first eight weeks after fertilization. After that, we enter the fetal stage, which is from nine weeks post-fertilization until birth. Fetal stem cells are stem cells harvested during the fetal stage of development.

Fetal stem cells, often procured from elective abortions, are disingenuously classified as “adult” stem cells simply because they do not come from embryos. Needless to say, this creates great confusion, even causing pro-lifers to tout “adult” stem-cell successes when the stem cells originally came from an aborted fetus.

Hockey legend Gordie Howe was in the headlines this year for his remarkable recovery from a stroke after a stem-cell treatment in Tijuana, Mexico. Former San Francisco 49ers’ quarterback John Brodie also received the same treatment. Initially, the reports indicated that Howe and Brodie were treated with “adult” stem cells. Pro-life news feeds lit up with the news.

But enterprising USA Today sports reporter Brent Schrotenboer revealed last month that the treatment Howe and Brodie received from Stemedica Cell Technologies included stem cells derived from an aborted fetus.

Monday, June 22. 2015

Hockey legend Gordie Howe was in the headlines this year for his remarkable recovery from a stroke after a stem cell treatment in Tijuana, Mexico. Initially the reports indicated that Howe was treated with "adult" stem cells, and so the implication was that his treatment was non-controversial. But Brent Schrotenboer, of USA Today, reported last month that Howe's treatment included stem cells derived from an aborted fetus.

Stemedica, a San Diego company that provides the stem cell treatment to clinics like the one in Mexico, combines two types of stem cells -- meshenchymal stem cells from an adult donor and neural stem cells from a 14 to 16 week old aborted fetus. Stemedica claims that fetal stem cells are "adult" stem cells because they behave more like true adult stem cells than embryonic stem cells. USA Today reports:

The company, Stemedica Cell Technologies of San Diego, says calling them "adult" stem cells is scientifically correct because they are considered more mature stem cells with a specialized function, as opposed to embryonic stem cells, which are more akin to "blank slate" cells that are considered riskier and more likely to cause tumors....

"We don't use the word fetal too much," said Maynard Howe, Stemedica's CEO, who is no relation to Gordie Howe. "We just don't want to get people confused about what it is. They're really considered legally adult stem cells even if they're fetal-derived."

Unfortunately, this is not new. Scientists and companies like Stemedica often call stem cells that come from aborted fetuses "adult" stem cells simply because they did not come from an embryo.

Stemedica's silence on where they got their stem cells has caused great confusion. Confusion they are not eager to correct,Continue reading at LifeNews>>

Friday, August 15. 2014

You have no doubt seen a video of a friend on Facebook being doused with buckets of ice water. What would possess a human being to do something so chilling? It is the Ice Bucket Challenge to raise money and awareness for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), often called Lou Gehrig's Disease. ALS is a devastating, progressive neurodegenerative disease that is fatal and has no cure.

Here is how Ice Bucket Challenge works. People video themselves getting doused with ice water then share that video on social media. They challenge others to do the same in the next 24 hours. If anyone rejects the challenge they are encouraged to give $100 to an ALS charity.

Bringing money and awareness to ALS is a noble goal indeed. The Ice Bucket Challenge seems like a silly stunt, but it is working. It has gone viral, and money is pouring in to ALS charities. Celebrities, politicians, and everyday people are getting cold and wet to help those with this devastating disease

The ALS Association, the "preeminent ALS organization", reports that they have taken in over $4 million this year; four times what was donated last year.

But not all ALS charities are the same. For example the ALS Association reported that that last year they gave $500,000 to Northeast ALS Consortium (NEALS), the largest association of ALS clinical researchers in the world. Likely, the ALS Association will give more to NEALS this year with the popularity of the Ice Bucket Challenge.

NEALS helps run clinical trials for ALS. On their website, they say that a "NEALS-affliated" trial is one where the "sponsor of the trial has contracted NEALS Coordinating Centers to help conduct the trial. A sponsor may contract NEALS to manage an entire trial or just a portion of the work."

I found a NEALS-affliated active trial on their website that clearly states it uses stem cells that originated from an electively aborted fetus. The trial is being funded by NeuralStem Inc. and the description states:

These stem cells have been engineered from the spinal cord of a single fetus electively aborted after eight weeks of gestation. The tissue was obtained with the mother's consent.

Of course the fetus, from whom the "tissue" was taken, did not "give consent."

So if you give to the ALS Association your money may end up supporting clinical trials that use aborted fetal cells. Even if the money is not directly going to facilitate such research, it will be going to organizations that see no problem in using aborted innocents as biological material for medical use. That legitimizes and encourages the practice which is unacceptable in my estimation.

So who can you give your Ice Bucket Challenge money to? I know of one charity that is not focused on funding the research, but on making the lives of those with ALS better through technology and on raising awareness for the disease. Team Gleason, founded by former NFL player and ALS patient, Steve Gleason, has the following mission:

• Help provide individuals with neuromuscular diseases or injuries with leading edge technology, equipment and services.• Create a global conversation about ALS to ultimately find solutions and an end to the disease.• Raise public awareness toward ALS by providing and documenting extraordinary life adventures for individuals with muscular diseases or injuries.

No one is ever certain where every penny of their charity dollars go, but I think Team Gleason is a better choice, just in case you are challenged and an ice bath is not for you!

Thursday, July 26. 2012

In the comments section of yesterday's Russian news report that 248 human fetuses aged 12 weeks gestation were found discarded in the Ural mountains, suspected of being used to harvest stem cells, one Russian reader was horrified enough to write, "Oh my God !! Not in Russia !! I thought these things only happen in the USA !!"

As a proud American, my knee-jerk response was to be defensive and wonder where in the U.S. are the aborted unborn routinely found discarded by the side of the road. Nowhere, of course. So why, in the United States, would we be expected to have such a gruesome find?

And then I remembered I have been the one screaming about the Brave New United States for years. Good ol America. The country with "reproductive rights" instead of laws prohibiting the mass creation and destruction of embryos for research, or laws regulating the fertility industry, or laws outlawing sex-selective abortion, or laws prohibiting human germ-line genetic modifications, or even laws that outlaw human cloning. While other industrialized nations have some protections in place for the youngest and most innocent human lives, we are a shining example of callous disregard for the unborn.

We are even proud of our research using cells from the bodies of aborted innocents, as I was reminded by this report from Massachusetts's Institute of Technology's (MIT) Technology Review. It is a glowing review of a California company that would like to start human trials for Alzheimer's using neural stem cells obtained from aborted fetal tissue:

Last week, a California biotech company announced that its human stem cells restored memory in rodents bred to have an Alzheimer's-like condition—the first evidence that human neural stem cells can improve memory.

The company, called StemCells, is betting that its proprietary preparation of stem cells from fetal brain tissue will take on many different roles in the central nervous system. The company and its collaborators have already shown that its stem-cell product has potential in protecting vision in diseased eyes, acting as brain support cells, or improving walking ability in rodents with spinal cord injury....

His company is not the only group bringing stem cells into the clinic. While much attention was paid to Geron's departure from the world's first embryonic stem cell trial (see "Geron Shuts Down Pioneering Stem-Cell Program"), many other groups have continued to push their non-embryonic stem-cell therapies forward for leukemia, colitis, stroke, and more. Meanwhile, Advanced Cell Technology continues its U.K.-based embryonic stem-cell therapy trials for blindness. Non-embryonic stem cells can come from a variety of sources—bone marrow, blood, as well as donated aborted fetal tissue, as is the case with StemCells and Neuralstem, another company focused on neuronal stem cells. In recent years, scientists have also developed methods for turning normal adult cells into stem cells (so-called induced pluripotent stem cells), but their safety has yet to be tested in humans.

So while StemCells is not a lone wolf, it may well be a pack leader.[Emphasis mine.]

Well isn't that special. It seems, according to MIT's Technology Review, there is no controversy using stem cells from unborn babies ripped from their mother's womb. No big deal. Routine business. Nothing to see here. Move on.

While still off base, I think I understand that Russian comment a bit better now.

I wonder if StemCells gets FDA approval for such a trial whether they will ensure that the participants are well informed about where the "stem-cell product" originated. It really is time for The Fair Labeling and Informed Consent Act that will ensure that patients and consumers are informed before any treatment or procedure that contains aborted fetal tissue or where aborted fetal tissue is used in the manufacturing or development of a product.

Wednesday, July 25. 2012

If there were not gruesome pictures that go along with this story, I may have doubted its veracity. It is just too horrible. A Russian news outlet is reporting that 248 human fetuses aged 12 weeks gestation were found discarded in the Ural mountains. Speculation is that these little lives were victims of legal (and illegal) abortion and possibly slated to be used in research or harvested for valuable fetal stem cells. From RT.com:(Warning graphic photos)

Medical experts and investigators are pondering the origins of more than 200 human fetuses found disposed in the Urals. Speculation ranges from illegal abortions to illegal stem-cell research.

The discovery of 248 human fetuses near the town of Nevyansk in the Urals sent waves through the medical community in Russia, raising questions as to why and how the fetuses, aged 12-16 weeks, ended up in the forest near a highway.

Officials already believe the fetuses are from at least four different medical institutions. Some of them may be more than a decade old.

All the fetuses are now undergoing forensic examination at a local hospital in an attempt to discover more details which may shed light on the case.

Police officials say negligence on behalf of company which provided disposal of biological waste for several hospitals in the region is most likely responsible for the incident. They add right now none of the medical institutions are under suspicion for questionable activity.

However, before any definite ruling is made by investigators, many in the medical field propose their own version of events.

The head of the State Duma committee on Family, Women and Children, Elena Mizulina, believes the fetuses were intended for pharmacological and cosmetological purposes.

“It’s possible there was some kind of medical or law enforcement inspection coming up, so someone wanted to get rid of incriminating evidence,” she said in an interview to newspaper Izvestia.

Mizulina said fetuses at this stage of development are especially valued by pharmacologists and cosmetologists since they present a great source of stem cells. “The demand for such “material” is huge.”

Some believe the fetuses were “leftovers” of a negligent experiment: “I wouldn’t be surprised if at the end it turned out that someone was gathering research material for a dissertation, and then just threw it away in this manner,” said an unidentified doctor in an interview to Gazeta.ru.

Gynecologist Yuliana Abaeva also believes the fetuses may have been intended to serve as the source of vaccines: “It could be an unused abortive material for vaccines or fetal therapy, which is a cell therapy, extremely popular in cosmetology,” she said in an interview to Russian News Service.

I have said it many times. We abandon the human embryo at our own peril. Once we see one segment of our species as harvestable biological material, more and more of us start looking like meat for harvest as well.It doesn't matter if stem cells or research was the intended use for these innocent lives or not. It is telling that so many are speculating that it was.Culture of death indeed..

Wednesday, May 16. 2012

Pertussis, better known as whooping cough, is on the rise. There is a outbreak right now in Washington State. From MedPageToday.com:

Pertussis infections have reached epidemic proportions in the state of Washington, officials there said, with more than 10 times as many cases this year as were counted by early May in 2011.

The state's health department has recorded 1,284 cases of pertussis, familiarly known as whooping cough, through May 5. Last year, 128 cases were reported through the first 18 weeks.

In six of the past eight weeks, more than 100 cases were reported. Although there were only 54 in the week ending May 5, the health department noted that additional cases may have occurred that had not been reported to the department.

By far, the highest infection rates have been in children and teens. Infants younger than 12 months and children 10 to 13 years old have had rates approaching 1 per 1,000.

Among the 86 infants infected, 23 were hospitalized. Most of those admissions were in infants younger than 3 months.

Pertussis is nasty. It causes violent and uncontrollable coughing. In infants it can be deadly. Vaccinations for pertussis do not start until age 2 months and take several subsequent vaccinations to build immunity, so if you have an infant, make sure everyone around him or her has been vaccinated.

Make sure your children are up to date on their pertussis vaccinations AND make sure that your teenager or young adult in your life has HAD A BOOSTER!!! It is this group that is vulnerable because their immunity has waned. Also pregnant women in their third trimester should also have a booster. Here is the info from the CDC. (DTaP is for children and Tdap is for adolescents and adults):

Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis Vaccines

There are several formulations of vaccines used to prevent diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis. Some are combined with vaccines to prevent other diseases and reduce the total number of shots that someone receives at one office visit. In the U.S., DTaP, Tdap, and Td vaccines are most commonly used. One of these (DTaP) is given to children younger than 7 years of age, and two (Tdap and Td) are given to older children and adults.

Children should get 5 doses of DTaP, one dose at each of the following ages: 2, 4, 6, and 15-18 months and 4-6 years.

Td is a tetanus-diphtheria vaccine given to adolescents and adults as a booster shot every 10 years, or after an exposure to tetanus under some circumstances. Tdap is similar to Td but also containing protection against pertussis. Adolescents 11-18 years of age (preferably at age 11-12 years) and adults 19 through 64 years of age should receive a single dose of Tdap. For adults 65 and older who have close contact with an infant and have not previously received Tdap, one dose should be received. Tdap should also be given to 7-10 year olds who are not fully immunized against pertussis. Tdap can be given no matter when Td was last received.

I know that some of you are worried that DTaP or Tdap are part of the set of vaccines that are grown in aborted fetal cells. They are not. There is one combined vaccine that you should avoid though. According to Children of God for Life, Pentacel by Sanofi Pasteur is a combined shot for DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis), polio and HiB. The polio portion is made in MRC-5, a cell line derived from an aborted fetus. Instead ask for Glaxo SmithKline's Pediarix which is a combined vaccine for DTaP, polio and hepatitis-B but does not used MRC-5 cell line in its manufacture.

Thursday, January 12. 2012

Long time readers of Mary Meets Dolly know that I have suffered from depression my whole adult life. Symptoms of depression and anxiety run in my family. So any story about new treatments for depression always catch my eye. But this one caught my eye for another reason. One of the indications of depression is a reduced hippocampus, a part of the brain that controls, among other things, memory and spatial navigation. Scientists have found a drug that increases the size of the hippocampus and they hope that this will not only treat depression, schizophrenia, and Alzheimer's but cure them. From Gizmodo:

If you are depressed, or schizophrenic or have Alzheimer's, scientists say you probably have a shrunken hippocampus. The good news: a drug that just entered human trials promises to re-grow that part of the brain.

It's an entirely new approach to treating clinical depression, which is the first of several diseases scientists at biotech company Neuralstem are hoping to address with their experimental oral drug. Most antidepressants work on brain chemistry, tweaking levels of neurotransmitters including serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine. This is the first drug that aims to re-grow patients' atrophied brains.

Dr. Karl Johe, Neuralstem's CEO, believes that depression is a three-headed beast that affects neurotransmitter levels, neurons, and hippocampus size. And he says their new drug could address all three. He also hopes the drug will reverse the disease to the point that patients could permanently go off the drug.

"If we can show by MRI that we've increased hippocampus volume and at the same time reversed depression symptoms for six months after patients have stopped taking the drug, then we'll have a cure."

They discovered this drug by testing several on Neuralstem's neural stem cell line and seeing which promoted cell growth. Then they tested the most promising one in animals and now NSI-189 is being tested in humans for effectiveness at treating depression.

Anyone who has ever suffered with depression, or know someone who has, is cheering. Depression is devastating and debilitating and curing it would be a great achievement. But that is not what caught my eye. It is that this drug was tested with Neuralstem's cell line. A cell line that, with a little digging, looks to have come from an aborted fetus. From a Bloomberg press release:

The researchers used a line of neural stem cells developed by Neuralstem Inc., a closely held biotechnology company based in Rockville, Maryland. The company developed the line from fetal tissue donated by a woman who underwent an elective abortion at 8 weeks.

The stem cells, taken from an area near the developing spinal cord of the fetus, have the theoretical ability to develop or differentiate into any of three cell types found in the nervous system. The cells were kept alive in culture and chemically manipulated to keep them from differentiating.

So the question is, would it be ethical to take this drug for depression if it becomes an FDA approved treatment? The manufacture of the drug itself does not require aborted fetal tissue. It was only discovered and developed using cells that look to be obtained from an elective abortion.

I think this situation may be analogous to that of vaccines. Many vaccines are created with cell lines that originated from an aborted fetus. Cell lines MRC-5 and WI-38 are common cell lines used to produce vaccines for rubella, polio, hepatitis A and chicken pox. MRC-5 was developed from lung cells from a 14-week-old male fetus that was electively aborted in 1966. The WI-38 line was derived from a female fetus that was aborted in 1964.

Many people often argue that using fetal cells from an aborted fetus is morally acceptable because the fetus was going to die anyway. The Catholic Church rejects this argument. If an organism must be intentionally destroyed to harvest cells, then the cells are morally tainted. If these fetal stem cells had come from a natural miscarriage, then it would be morally permissible for parents to donate these cells to research. The morality of fetal cell use is analogous to that of organ donation. If the patient died of natural causes or a traumatic event, then is is morally permissible to use their organs for the benefit of others. It is not morally permissible to intentionally and prematurely end a person's life and then take their organs for donation. Using fetal stem cells from aborted fetuses is analogous to using organs from death row inmates or victims of euthanasia.

I have written before that it is acceptable for pro-life parents to use these vaccines for their children as long as parents do their homework, request alternatives and voice their objections to health care providers if no alternatives are available. Companies will not change their practices if there are no complaints against their practices.

Which brings me to what truly bothers me about this drug and what Neuralstem, and others like Senomyx, a biotech company that uses aborted fetal cell lines to taste flavor enhancers, are doing. There is no mention anywhere on Neuralstem's website, as far as I could see, that lets the consumer know where they got the cells for their stem cell line. It could be they no longer use that cell line but I found no information to the contrary. Their recently published articles refer to their neural stem cell lines as "fetal" and "embryonic." How are consumers supposed to object if they do not even know there is something to object to?

I fear this is the future. Well meaning pro-lifers using drugs and other medical breakthroughs with no knowledge of the unethical practices that brought them to market. This is another disastrous legacy of Roe vs. Wade. A fetus is now considered no more than just tissue and therefore companies do not feel obligated to let patients know that their product was made possible by ripping a fetus from its mother's womb. These companies could have used cells from a natural miscarriage but instead they chose to morally taint their work by using the cells from the taking of an innocent life. And thanks to the false notion of "reproductive rights" now they do not feel obliged to disclose this very important fact. A fact that would matter greatly to a great many people. If only we knew about it.

Wednesday, February 10. 2010

I have written before about ReNeuron, a UK company that is built around the neural stem cells taken from an aborted fetus. ReNeuron has gotten approval to begin a trial treating stroke patients with these stem cells. Once again the financial sector has the story and the true source of the stem cells, which is usually absent in mainstream media reports. From the Financial Times:

ReNeuron has overcome the final regulatory barrier to treating stroke patients with stem cells.

The UK Gene Therapy Advisory Committee granted its approval for the Guildford-based company to begin a clinical trial with a dozen stroke patients in Scotland. It will be the world’s first human test of stem cell therapy for strokes.

John Sinden, ReNeuron chief scientist, told the FT the two-year trial would begin in the second quarter of 2010, led by Keith Muir, a neurologist at Glasgow University. Extensive animal tests have shown neural stem cells – derived from cells that originated several years ago in an aborted human foetus – could help a damaged brain to regenerate, potentially relieving some symptoms of strokes.

The FDA put ReNeuron's application for clinical trials in the United States on hold in 2007.

Monday, January 25. 2010

In all of the controversy over embryonic stem cells, fetal stem cells are often overlooked. What are fetal stem cells? Fetal stem cells some from a fetus anywhere from 8 weeks to 20 weeks gestation. The most common source of fetal stem cells are from aborted fetuses. The use of fetal stem cells in research is often presented as totally uncontroversial. The reason is because fetal stem cells are often called adult stem cells simply because they do not come from embryos.

Do not be fooled. Fetal stem cells are donated by a woman after an elective abortion. In other words, to get fetal stem cells, a fetus must die. This article about the direct injection of fetal stem cells into the spinal cord of a patient with ALS, better known as Lou Gehrig's disease, is a perfect example of how the media often gloss over this fact:

For the first time in the United States, stem cells have been directly injected into the spinal cord of a patient, researchers announced Thursday.

Doctors injected stem cells from 8-week-old fetal tissue into the spine of a man in his early 60s who has advanced ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. It was part of a clinical trial designed to determine whether it is safe to inject stem cells into the spinal cord and whether the cells themselves are safe.

ALS is a fatal neurodegenerative disease that causes the deterioration of specific nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord called motor neurons, which control muscle movement. About 30,000 Americans have ALS at any given time, according to the ALS Association.

The company that has received FDA approval for this trial is Neuralstem Inc. Their website does not announce where they got their fetal stem cells. They could have gotten them from a miscarriage which would have been an ethical source. The above article also does not mention where the fetal stem cells came from. But a short search brought me to the answer. This press release (taken from Bloomberg.com) clearly states where Neuralstem Inc. got its fetal neural stem cells:

Neuralstem Inc.

The researchers used a line of neural stem cells developed by Neuralstem Inc., a closely held biotechnology company based in Rockville, Maryland. The company developed the line from fetal tissue donated by a woman who underwent an elective abortion at 8 weeks.

The stem cells, taken from an area near the developing spinal cord of the fetus, have the theoretical ability to develop or differentiate into any of three cell types found in the nervous system. The cells were kept alive in culture and chemically manipulated to keep them from differentiating.

Of course the original article about the ALS trial never mentions that the fetal stem cells came from a fetus ripped out of its mother's womb:

These particular stem cells -- which came from the spinal cord of an 8-week-old fetus -- are neural stem cells, which have the ability to turn into different types of nerve cells. These are not the same stem cells as the controversial human embryonic stem cells, which destroy the embryo when the stem cells are removed.

It is implied that because these cells do not come from embryos, they are non-controversial. I suppose if you fail to mention that these cells came from an aborted fetus, they fail to stir up controversy. Convenient.

The source of the stem cells is not the only reason to be concerned about this trial. A year ago, it was announced that a boy injected with fetal stem cells developed a brain tumor. From the AP:

A family desperate to save a child from a lethal brain disease sought highly experimental injections of fetal stem cells—injections that triggered tumors in the boy's brain and spinal cord, Israeli scientists reported Tuesday....

The unidentified Israeli boy has a rare, fatal genetic disease with a tongue-twisting name—ataxia telangiectasia, or A-T. Degeneration of a certain brain region gradually robs these children of movement. Plus, a faulty immune system leads to frequent infections and cancers. Most die in their teens or early 20s.

Israeli doctors pieced together the child's history: When he was 9, the family traveled to Russia, to a Moscow clinic that provided injections of neural stem cells from fetuses—immature cells destined to grow into a main type of brain cells. The cells were injected into his brain and spinal cord twice more, at ages 10 and 12.

Back home in Israel at age 13, the boy's A-T was severe enough to require that he use a wheelchair when he also began complaining of headaches. Tests at Sheba Medical Center in Tel Aviv uncovered a growth pushing on his brain stem and a second on his spinal cord. Surgeons removed the spinal cord mass when the boy was 14, in 2006 and they say his general condition has remained stable since then.

Many people often argue that using fetal stem cells from an aborted fetus is morally acceptable because the fetus was going to die anyway. The Catholic Church rejects this argument. If an organism must be intentionally destroyed to harvest cells, then the cells are morally tainted. If these fetal stem cells had come from a natural miscarriage, then it would be morally permissible, even laudable, for parents to donate these cells to research. The morality of fetal stem cell use is analogous to that of organ donation. If the patient died of natural causes or a traumatic event, then is is morally permissible to use their organs for the benefit of others. It is not morally permissible to intentionally and prematurely end a person's life and then take their organs for donation. Using fetal stem cells from aborted fetuses is analogous to using organs from death row inmates or victims of euthanasia.

This ALS trial is one to watch. I pray that researchers come up with a better and safer way to treat ALS than the use of fetal stem cells.

Tuesday, March 17. 2009

I am beginning to love William Saletan. I know...I know, he is pro-choice. But I cannot help but like people who are intellectually honest and can see the writing on the wall.

I have said that we abandon the embryo at our own peril. Which means if we allow the embryo, a member of the human species, to be gutted for harvestable biological material, then all of a sudden other members of our species begin to look like that as well. The "they are going to die anyway" argument is particularly insidious because it sounds so reasonable. But the slippery slope is treacherous. Death row inmates are going to die anyway, why not put their organs to good use like the Chinese? What about those in a persistent vegetative state? Why not use the organs from aborted fetuses? They are going to die anyway right? That is the suggestion of a stem cell scientist in Britain.

Two arguments have persuaded the United States to fund stem-cell research using destroyed embryos. One is that the research will save lives. The other is that the embryos, left over from fertility treatments, will otherwise be wasted.

Then quotes:

Professor Stuart Campbell, who has argued for the abortion time limit to be lowered, had no ethical objections to the proposal. He said many babies were aborted quite late, "and if they are going to be terminated, it is a shame to waste their organs."

Friday, February 20. 2009

I know I am a little late commenting on this story but I wanted to point out a couple of important issues. From the AP story:

A family desperate to save a child from a lethal brain disease sought highly experimental injections of fetal stem cells—injections that triggered tumors in the boy's brain and spinal cord, Israeli scientists reported Tuesday....

The unidentified Israeli boy has a rare, fatal genetic disease with a tongue-twisting name—ataxia telangiectasia, or A-T. Degeneration of a certain brain region gradually robs these children of movement. Plus, a faulty immune system leads to frequent infections and cancers. Most die in their teens or early 20s.

Israeli doctors pieced together the child's history: When he was 9, the family traveled to Russia, to a Moscow clinic that provided injections of neural stem cells from fetuses—immature cells destined to grow into a main type of brain cells. The cells were injected into his brain and spinal cord twice more, at ages 10 and 12.

Back home in Israel at age 13, the boy's A-T was severe enough to require that he use a wheelchair when he also began complaining of headaches. Tests at Sheba Medical Center in Tel Aviv uncovered a growth pushing on his brain stem and a second on his spinal cord. Surgeons removed the spinal cord mass when the boy was 14, in 2006 and they say his general condition has remained stable since then.

These stem cell were fetal stem cells. Yes that is right, stem cells taken from fetuses that were likely victims of elective abortion. Some researchers have said that stem cells from late-term abortions are the best. If fetal stem cells can cause uncontrolled growth, then there are major concerns about Geron's upcoming human trial with embryonic stem cells. Wesley J. Smith voiced my concerns perfectly:

Which brings us to the Geron license from the FDA. Geron's work with its product has been exclusively with mice, which were not kept alive nearly the four years it took for this patient to develop stem cell-caused tumors. This raises a question of whether, in light of this report, the FDA should revisit its go ahead to Geron to use ES cell-derived cells in human beings,particularly since it might take years to learn whether the product causes tumors.

And while we are on the subject, it is important that the patient-subject consent forms that will be used in these experiments--which have not yet been made public--be carefully reviewed. The paralyzed patients who will participate in Geron's safety trials are full ambulatory at this moment. But these unknown persons will be seriously injured sometime soon. Within a week or two of their injuries, facing potential paralysis from spinal cord injury, they will be approached by Geron to be test subjects, since the product designed for acute cases, not people with long-term paralysis. This will be a very emotional time in which these patients will be in deep emotional distress at the prospect of never walking again. In such an urgent crisis situation, it will be particularly important that all participants be made unequivocally aware of the potential risks, that these adverse events might take years to develop, and indeed, that being the subjects of such potentially risky experiments, that they might have to be monitored for the rest of their lives.

This boy's family was desperate to find him a cure and had him injected with stem cells from fetuses and years later there are serious consequences. Somewhere out there today are 10 people who will be desperate to walk again. If they join this trial there maybe lifelong consequences for them as well. I truly pray for them and their families.

Friday, August 24. 2007

I have written before about how I believe that the real story isn't about embryonic stem cells, but fetal stem cells. Fetal stem cells come from spontaneous or induced abortions. Yes, that is right, stem cells from 10 to 20 week old fetuses. There is a very slippery slope between creating embryos and extracting embryonic stem cells in a dish, and implanting those embryos into female volunteers, letting the embryos grow into fetuses and aborting them to harvest fetal stem cells that are as versatile as embryonic stem cells, but not nearly as unstable (meaning that they do not cause tumors.)

Some people may think I am crazy to think this "destroying human life to harvest stem cells" trend will go that far. Unfortunately, it probably already has gone this far and possibly farther. It is time to see the writing on the wall.

I have long asserted that conducting ESCR and human cloning research is not intended, nor will it long remain, in the Petri dish. Rather, the real game is implantation and gestation into the late embryo and fetal stages, which would better permit disease studies, research into
genetic engineering, organ harvesting, etc.

Primate cloning is the precursor to learning how to do human cloning. Now, a paper (Human Reproduction Vol.22, No.8 pp. 2232*2242, 2007) published in a professional journal (no link), shows scientists indeed want to conduct fetal farming in monkey models:

The availability of reliable, efficient methods for producing viable SCNT embryos in the monkey should support the derivation, characterization and transplantation of autologous, immunocompatible ESCs in efforts to restore form and function to damaged tissues in a preclinical model. However, our goal of producing neurodegenerative disease models in the monkey from gene targeted donor cells will require pregnancy establishment following SCNT embryo transfer into synchronized recipients.

When human fetal farming begins--assuming it can be technologically--don't say you weren't warned.

Thursday, February 22. 2007

"Hope for Daniel" is a piece by the Mercury News about a boy names Daniel who is being treated for Batten disease with "adult stem cells." Unfortunately, Batten disease is fatal.

I think I have yet to see a piece so fraught with contradictions. On one hand, it portrays advances in adult stem cells in a very favorable light and points out the bad rap adult stem cell research gets. On the other hand, it includes stem cells from aborted babies under the "adult stem cell" umbrella.

Let us start with the positive aspects. Here are some great quotes about adult stem cell research:

A New England Journal of Medicine editorial in September dismissed such adult stem-cell claims as "pure hokum.'' And in July, a letter published by three scientists in the journal Science complained that inflated assertions about adult stem cells "mislead lay people and cruelly deceive patients.''

``If people could just focus on the data and the science, I think we'd all be better off,'' said Martin McGlynn, chief executive officer of StemCells, the Palo Alto company that developed Daniel's treatment. McGlynn says he wishes the discussion about adult and embryonic cells was less politicized....

...some scientists, including Stewart Sell, editor in chief of the journal Stem Cell Reviews, contend adult stem cells often don't get the recognition they deserve, in part because of the politics surrounding them.

``There are many in the field, including myself, who don't understand why some groups of scientists feel they have to disrespect adult stem-cell research in order to push embryonic stem-cell research,'' said Sell, who supports studies of both types of cells.

Here is where I have trouble. Fetal stem cells come from fetuses, usually after 10 week gestation. They can come from miscarriage or election abortion. So, in the archaic definition of "adult stem cells" as stem cells from sources other than an embryo, technically fetal stem cells are adult stem cells. As the Mercury News article points out, Daniel has been treated with stem cells from abortions:

On Nov. 14, the boy became the first person to have his brain injected with nerve stem cells derived from fetal tissue. The cells are technically considered adult stem cells because they are found in body organs and specialized tissue that has matured past the embryo stage.

Adult cell in 10-12 weeks

While embryonic stem cells can produce every tissue in the body, adult stem cells -- which often appear in the body about 10 to 12 weeks after conception -- can usually produce only a limited variety of tissue types.

Some abortion opponents object to Daniel's procedure because the cells he received came from women who had abortions, miscarriages or stillbirths. Nonetheless, because the cells are adult stem cells, they aren't subject to federal restrictions on human embryonic stem cells.

Clearly, the problem is that many of us that object to destroying embryos to get at their stem cells would also object to using abort babies as harvestable biological material. By clumping fetal stem cells with adult stem cells, most of us will no doubt be deceived.

The Catholic Church would only condone the use of fetal stem cells if they came from a miscarriage and donated with consent by the parents, much like in the organ donation of a deceased child.

Daniel is improving with the fetal stem cell treatment:

Before the operation, Daniel could barely speak or walk. Now, three months later, they say he is talking, eating ravenously and fast gaining strength.

``It's a miracle, what's happening to this little boy,'' said Daniel's father, Marcus Kerner, who is heartened by the many people who have said they are praying for his son. ``We have hope and faith that these children are going to make it.''

I fear there is a market for aborted babies, and not just for eggs either. I have said many times that fetal stem cells are valuable, not only because they are more stable than embryonic stem cells, which means they don't cause tumor formation, but because they are already differentiated into the cell type of choice.

I am particularly disturbed by the following sentiment from Daniel's parents:

That troubles Daniel Kerner's parents. They say they don't care whether a treatment is from adult stem cells or the embryonic kind. If it has the slightest possibility of helping a child with an otherwise incurable disease, they maintain, it should be tried.

I pray for Daniel and sympathize with his parents, but I certainly do not agree that anything goes if it has the "slightest possibility of helping a child."

The moral of this story: read carefully. Just because the article says adult stem cells doesn't necessarily mean that they come from an ethical source.

Tuesday, December 12. 2006

There is heated debate about the ethics of using stem cells. Healthy new-born babies may have been killed in Ukraine to feed a flourishing international trade in stem cells, evidence obtained by the BBC suggests.

Monday, November 20. 2006

LONDON (AFX) - UK-based adult stem cell therapy company ReNeuron Group PLC announced the market launch of its patented ReNcell neural stem cell lines for non-therapeutic applications under a multi-year agreement with a biopharmaceutical manufacturing company Millipore Corporation.

The company said it will receive royalty payments on cell line and media sales made by Millipore, which will exclusively manufacture and supply ReNcell.

ReNeuron said the ReNcell lines have been generated for application as models for regenerative medicine. The cell lines are particularly useful in drug discovery applications, where the development of these pathways can be monitored during drug screening, it added.

Why am I disappointed? First because, ReNeuron uses aborted fetuses as a source of neural stem cells. From ReNeuron's website:

ReNeuron has built its technology platform around human somatic stem cells derived from the fetus, which we believe offer the most viable route to the clinic for stem cell therapy. The principal factors supporting this somatic stem cell approach can be characterised as follows:

Multipotency: somatic stem cells are able to differentiate into the specific cell types found in the organ from which they originated, removing the need for the cell manipulation or sorting when using hES cellsQuality: somatic stem cells from the fetus are free from adventitious virus contaminationSafety: somatic stem cells can be controlled more readily than hES cells once implanted, removing the possible risk of tumours

Sunday, October 15. 2006

All of the fervor over embryonic stem cells often overlooks the procurement of the more desirable pluripotent stem cell, the ones from fetuses. Now, it is possible to get fetal stem cells from miscarriage which would be ethical. But most likely, fetal stem cells come from aborted fetuses.

And while embryonic stem cells that are procured by destryoing embryos are not available for federal funding in the United States, there is no such restriction for research on stem cells from fetuses.

And there is money to be made off the little bodies of aborted babies. From MSN Money:

Dr. James H. Kelly, Chief Executive Officer of Stem Cell Innovations, Inc. SCLL, presented data yesterday at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Germ Cell meeting describing further characterization of PluriCells(TM), the Company's pluripotent human stem cell lines. Because these cells are derived from fetal tissue, not early embryos, they are eligible for use in laboratories funded by the National Institutes of Health.

In his presentation, Dr. Kelly described biochemical characteristics of the cells that establish their similarity to human embryonic stem cells, human embryonic germ cells and human primordial germ cells. He also described the ability of the cells to become cells associated with the placenta, a further demonstration of their ability to become multiple cell types.

PluriCells(TM) are a pluripotent stem cell isolated from fetal tissue that have the ability to become all cell types of the body. Because they are developed from fetal germ cells, not viable embryos, they are eligible to be used in any NIH funded laboratory. Stem cells derived from fetal germ cells were explicitly excluded from the Presidential ban by the Department of Health and Human Services guidance document of March 19, 2002, that laid out what type of stem cells could and could not be used in Federally funded research (for the actual document see: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/stemcell.pdf).

Friday, October 6. 2006

From an excellent discussion of the ethics of embryonic stem cell research at Vision.org:

The lengths to which researchers will go to solve these puzzles and develop clinical applications often seem too utilitarian for comfort. Huseyin Mehmet of the Weston Laboratory at London’s Imperial College, for example, is investigating the use of stem cells to repair brain damage in premature infants. Most would call this a heroic endeavor.

His investigative technique, however, involves the extraction of brain cells from freshly aborted fetuses. At least this gives a pregnant woman the sense that “it’s not a total waste,” Mehmet told Vision. Later-term abortions are the best candidates, he noted, because “naïve stem cells are not good for therapy.”

Monday, April 3. 2006

Stem cells are cells that can produce additional stem cells as well as one or more other types of cells. Pluripotent stem cells can develop into most, if not all, of the tissues of the organism. To date, two types of mammalian stem cells have been shown to be truly pluripotent: the well-known embryonic stem cells (ES cells), which are cultured from very early embryos and are patented by the University of Wisconsin, and the lesser-known embryonic germ cells (EG cells), which are developed from fetal gonadal tissue.

Often fetal stem cells are presented as an acceptable alternative to embryonic stem cells (ES), and also available for federal funding:

While the widespread use of ES cells has been hampered by ethical issues and government funding limitations, Congressional legislation treats fetal tissue differently. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has stated that research involving the derivation and use of EG cells may be conducted with Federal support.

Also from a Fox Newsstory about a clinical trial in Oregon using fetal stem cells to treat Batten disease in children:

Researchers note the cells are taken from fetal tissue — not from developing embryos.

Not surprisingly, most stories on fetal stem cells fail to mention where the fetal tissue comes from. So what exactly are fetal stem cells and where do they come from? Well, read here and here and then come back and I will comment.

(I am so impressed with the Dept. of Molecular Biology at Princeton who did the above web pages as well as a great tutorial on SCNT because they haven't succumbed to the political pressure to use deceptive euphemisms instead of the scientifically correct terminology. Let's see if they stay that way!)

Now that we know how researchers obtain fetal stem cells (in case you missed it or are "click-challenged", fetal stem cells usually come from aborted babies), why are researchers looking at them as a source of pluripotent stem cells? From William Saletan's Organ Factory:

But if the goal is tissue, clones aren't less useful after 14 days. They're more useful, precisely because they're differentiating into the cell types that patients need. Why stop research at 14 days?

Four years ago, a team led by John Gearhart, one of the field's top researchers, published a study of cells "derived and cultured from 5-, 6-, 7-, and 11-week postfertilization primordial germ cells." The derived cells, unlike hES cell lines from embryos before 14 days, caused no tumors when they were injected into mice. Gearhart's team found that the derived cells "may be useful … as a resource for cellular transplantation therapies."

Saletan's point is that fetal stem cells are more desirable than embryonic stem cells because they are more differentiated so they do not cause tumors. One of the major hurdles with ESCs is that researchers need to get them to differentiate into the tissue of interest in a petri dish. Saletan's asks why not let the fetus do it for them? If we allow the destruction of embryos for tissue, why stop there? Why not use fetuses too? He asks:

Once you say we can do this much of it, what's the difference?

So is research on fetal stem cells unethical? Well, like with embryonic stem cells, it depends on how the stem cells are obtained. Using aborted babies for a source of stem cells is not only repugnant but also highly unethical.

Some would say, "Well if they are going to be aborted anyway, why not put the tissue to good use?" I say, "Why stop at stem cells? Why not use aborted babies as a source of organs or eggs for IVF and cloning, or as health food?"

The slippery slope here is staggering. Aborting babies by the millions in the name of choice is sickening, but creating a market for aborted baby tissue is terrifying not just for the babies but for the women who will be used as incubators, then put through the horrors of abortion for the "greater good of society."

That being said, is there an ethical way to obtain fetal stem cells? Absolutely. Just as we find organ donation as an acceptable way to obtain life saving organs, obtaining fetal stem cells from miscarriages would be ethical. But, donated miscarried babies are not as abundant as aborted babies; so I doubt miscarriages will be the "source of choice."

I predict fetal stem cells will be a more and more prominent feature in stories on stem cell successes, but I am sure the media and companies that profit from aborted babies will still fail to mention exactly where the fetal tissue comes from.

Tuesday, January 24. 2006

A UK company called ReNeuron is using fetal stem cells which they hope will treat diseases like Parkinsons, Huntingtons and diabetes. They explain why they have chosen to use fetal stem cells:

Early human embryonic stem cells (or 'hES' cells) are capable of forming cells from any tissues. However, the cells are likely to form tumours when transplanted.

As the tissues develop through the fetal and adult stages, the resident stem cell populations have a progressively diminished developmental potential and lose their inherent tumour- forming capacity, becoming somatic stem cells, also known as lineage- or tissue-restricted stem cells. Somatic stem cells are therefore likely to be the safest type for use in cell therapy treatments.

ReNeuron has built its technology platform around human somatic stem cells derived from the fetus, which we believe offer the most viable route to the clinic for stem cell therapy.

See the lovely diagram from their website? I think some thing may be missing. Could it be the aborted fetus from which they extracted their tissue. Of course ReNeuron does not mention where they get their fetal tissue and I don't want to accuse them of anything without proof, so I have writtten them to ask where they get their fetal tissue. Let's see what they say...